VA-SEN: Second Appearance In Court Records Of A "George Felix Allen" In 1973 -- Confirmed
Okay, I've got a bit more for you on the appearance of a "George Felix Allen" in the records of the Albemarle Circut Court in the early 1970s. As noted below, the court clerk, Shelby Marshall, confirmed to me in an interview earlier today that a picture posted at DailyKos showing a "George Felix Allen" appearance in 1974 court records is genuine. Now I've spoken with Marshall a second time, and she's confirmed that a second photo of a second court records entry involving a "George Felix Allen" is genuine, too. So now we know that "George Felix Allen" appeared in court records twice in the early 1970s. The clerk's confirmed it. But for what offense or offenses?
The second entry is depicted here:
That second entry appears in a book in the court with the following cover, Marshall confirmed:
In the case of the 1974 entry reported on earlier, Marshall told me in the first interview that that entry referred to either a summons or a warrant, and that it could have been for anything from an unpaid parking ticket up to a misdemeanor for something serious like assault and battery. But Marshall said that all further records of the case had been destroyed 10 years later by statute.
After speaking to Marshall a second time today about the photo of the second entry from 1973, it appears that the same is the case. Marshall told me that despite the fact that the second record appeared in an index of "criminal" cases, that it could still have been a minor infraction, such as "fishing without a license."
"Even if it were a summons, it would be a criminal case," Marshall said.
Adding an interesting layer to the story, Marshall said she's been clerk at the court for decades, that Allen even practiced law in that court when she was clerk, and that she respected Allen and had no memory of him commiting a serious infraction. "I have never known him to be anything other than a perfect gentleman," she told me.
Still, Marshall conceded that she didn't know what offense the entry was for, and added that as in the case of the earlier entry, the rest of the info about the case had been destroyed. It was unclear if the two entries were linked in some way, though Marshall suggested that she didn't think they were.
So there are very clearly some unanswered questions here, possibly important ones. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible that there's nothing here. The Allen campaign, for its part, isn't helping. We've put in several requests for comment from the Allen campaign, and have heard nothing back. This should be easy to clear up, shouldn't it?
Either way, here's what we know now: A George Felix Allen was issued either a summons or a warrant twice, in 1973 and in 1974. In each case, the offense could have been anything from an unpaid parking ticket to a serious misdemeanor. The episodes may or may not have been linked. And no further court records are available.
So that's where we are.
Update: Not Larry Sabato claims that the Allen campaign is saying that the 1974 entry was for fishing without a license. But there's no link to any statement provided by the Allen campaign and no one from the campaign is quoted, either, so it's unclear to me that the Allen camp has responded in this fashion.
OK, I live in Charlottesville. I don't plan to spend my next day off in the Alderman Library at UVA scaring up a 30 year-old scandal. Why? Because it is stupid.
I can tell you this: True Allen supporters could care less if he beat his wife, stuffed a deer head into a black person's mail box, flaunted the REBEL flag, displayed a noose, or any other red-neck thing he might have done.
The task is to give those who want to do the right thing for Virginia REAL reasons for voting for Webb. I work with a woman who watched the debates and was completely turned off by Webb. She had already been turned off by Allen. She (at this point) will either not vote, or will vote for the other candidate as a protest.
Forget Allen's assholeness! Webb has got to step up to the plate and convince the undecided that he is worthy of their votes. He is an unknown. That is not too much to ask, and he should be ready with answers.
I hate Allen, and I would love to hear all the dirt on him, but it is a waste of time~!
Jan Knaus
October 13, 2006 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really care what Allen did when he was in his early 20s. We do a great disservice to our country by digging into who had unpaid parking tickets when they were younger and discouraging some potentially great leaders from running. Everyone makes mistakes at some point. Allen has a poor enough voting record that we should be focusing on that instead of something minor--as mentioned, it is at most a misdemeanor.
What's next in evaluating candidates? Only accepting candidates who have taken--and passed--periodic drug tests throughout their lives? This is silly to me, and I really, really hope Webb wins.
October 13, 2006 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more, CVille.
I've been saying it since before the "Fighting Scotsman" got into it-
George Allen is a gibbering fool. Period.
He is a self-destruct mechanism waiting to be armed. Webby and the Dems need to pose the questions that he can't give the short "Stay the Course", "Support the Troops" kind of soundbite answer to. Once Allen has to actually speak, he loses his mind and begins to blow Bush-ism's out his pie hole.
CVille is also right on point with the rural nature of his base of support. They don't and won't care what he has done or said until they hear him talking about what fools they are for supporting him.
Sort of like the Evangelicals- now that they hear how disdainfully they are viewed in the White Castle of the Deceiver.
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
October 13, 2006 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
kent roberts,jan your so right,but i hope left.peace,kr
October 14, 2006 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have to disagree that what George Felix Allen did in his 20s is irrelevant. The right never fails to throw Senator Byrd's time in the KKK from 70 years ago, they never fail bring hurl the Chappaquiddick feces (though they never bring up Laura Bush's incident), and they are still talking about where John Kerry really was on Christmas Eve 1968.
So how is it that two criminal court appearances by George Felix Allen irrelevant? I'd say it was MADE fair game by the other side.
And I don't really believe that all of those records were destroyed. They don't destroy criminal records, that I know of, for anyone but George W Bush.
October 14, 2006 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan - I think you're absolutely correct. The dynamic of the race has been changed about as much as it's going to be by Bad Stuff About George Allen, even if there's a bunch more Bad Stuff waiting to come out. Now it's up to Webb to give Virginians affirmative reasons to vote for him.
I think Webb's most difficult hurdle is, like you say, that he is still a relative unknown. And like the old lightbulb joke about Virginians suggests (one to change the bulb, and two to talk about how great the old one was), Virginians have a strong preference for candidates they've built up a familiarity with.
If Mark Warner had opted to run for Senate this year, instead of flitting in and out of the Presidential race, I believe he'd be running ahead of Allen at this point: since Virginians already know Warner and have some confidence in him, there wouldn't be that "who is he?" hurdle to overcome when Bad Stuff About Allen caused Allen supporters to consider switching their loyalties.
But Webb hasn't yet demonstrated to a lot of Virginians that he's a trustworthy guy to transfer their loyalties to. Virginians are still just getting to know him, and that's a problem. And that's why Allen's still the strong favorite to pull this one out.
October 14, 2006 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pulling back a step, I remember thinking back in the spring that this would be the worst possible outcome to this race: that Allen holds onto his Senate seat, but gets seriously wounded with respect to his Presidential ambitions. This way we come away with nothing.
Two ways we could have come away with something:
1) Allen loses, hence Dems gain a Senate seat; or
2) Allen has a solid win, and is a viable rival to McCain for the 2008 GOP Presidential nomination.
Because right now, it looks like McCain is the all but certain 2008 GOP nominee. And he's the hardest one for a Democrat to beat; Allen would have been much easier. The GOP likes to anoint its Presidential candidates, and McCain's been winning the backing of the people who gave Bush his big war chest in 1999.
Three months ago, Allen still had the potential to upset that dynamic. He's much more beloved of the evangelical/cultural right than McCain is, and that's the biggest bloc of GOP primary votes. But now he's damaged goods, and that bloc of voters really doesn't have a candidate. And nobody else really has the campaign infrastructure to defeat McCain in the primaries. So we've screwed ourselves here.
October 14, 2006 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rove evidently thought that the 2000 disclosure of Bush's DUI in the early 70's cost the Republicans dearly in terms of evangelical turnout. It would likely do the same to Allen.
October 14, 2006 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
UVa has a strict and inviolable Honor System, and one facet of that code is reporting ones' self for wrongdoing.
"Students at the University make a commitment not to lie, cheat or steal within Charlottesville, Albemarle County, or where they represent themselves as University students in order to gain the trust of others....
Any student found guilty of an Honor offense, or deemed to have admitted guilt after having left without requesting a trial, will be permanently dismissed from the University. The notation "enrollment discontinued" will be placed on the student's transcript, without specific reference to the Honor proceedings. In the case of a student found guilty of an Honor offense following graduation, or deemed to have admitted guilt without requesting a trial after graduation, the General Faculty of the University may undertake proceedings to revoke that student's degree. The rules of the Honor System apply to any person who was a University student at the time an alleged Honor offense was committed, so long as a case is initiated within two years thereafter."
http://www.scps.virginia.edu/honor_code.htm
So perhaps someone might wish to see if a case was initiated against Allen for an honor code violation within two years of his departure. It could have been opened and never closed, or it might be able to be reopened if Allen weaseled out of it.
Revoke the weasel's degree and all sorts of things could start to unravel for him, but perhaps most importantly it could really tick off a couple hundred thousand people to come out of the UVa Republican Factory who successfully lived under that code.
October 14, 2006 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, you don't need any help from me in investigative reporting. But I can't stop myself.
All lawyers have to submit to scrutiny of their Character and Fitness by the Board of Bar Examiners. The Virginia requirement is currently set forth in Section 3 of the Rules of the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners http://www.vbbe.state.va.us/VBBE_Rules11_2001Ver.pdf
Those records are probably not public, but were probably not destroyed either.
If Allen was prosecuted for fishing without a license, this may be a way to prove it, end the speculation, and endear himself to his rural, regular guy base. For me, it is all about truth. If he told the truth today about a relatively serious offense 30 years ago, that would probably be fine. If he lies about it today, or covers it up, it raises doubts about his fitness.
Oh, by the way, one needs a jacket and tie to take the bar exam in Virginia. It's in the rules.
October 14, 2006 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has Allen told the people of Va. whether or not, he plans to serve six full years as Senator.Once he was thought of Presidential material,maybe not now,but a lot right-wing, red-neck, knuckledraggers,Jeeees'us Freaks, considers those charges to be a "Badge of Honor" in their Mockingbird Brain, Worlds!
Has Allen ever state that he'd serve the full term if re-elected?Remeber Bush, when re-elected in '98, promised the rednecks,and real cowboys in Texas, he was going to be their Governor for 4 years,but he was lying then,he had no plans what-so-ever of serving his term out out ,unless he couldn't steal the 2000 Election!
October 14, 2006 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, "fishing with out a license" is the excuse for ONE of these criminal cases. Supposedly just trival.
But what about the PATTERNS of behavior. Is this the, "I'm a rich-boy son of a famous football coach, laws don't apply to me," pattern?
Is this the bully's (well documented in Felix's case) pattern?
Is this the "Laws don't apply to Republicans" pattern, as with Dick Cheney when he shot his pal in Texas (hunting without a license)?
Or is this the excuse that George, two years before going to law school, was too dumb to know he had to have a fishing license? How did he ever pass the bar?
Come on Georgie. Fess up, you are just an a-hole. You have won 'til now because the other candidates were dumb, obscure, or bigger a-holes than you. But if you keep spinning the wheel, sooner or later luck will kiss the other guy.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/good_4_a_merica/2006/oct/08/rhinestone_allen
October 14, 2006 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Allen did is NOT irrelevent; it just doesn't matter in terms of this election, and is a way to spin wheels when other activities could help more.
Your examples prove my point: Senators Byrd and Kennedy manage to get re-elected every year despite the vitriole from the right. Why? Because the voters know them and like what they do for them.
Laura Bush is a saint to the right. Why? Because she has the perfect "wifely" ways -- always on the republican message, and always smiling adoringly at her adolescent hubby. They wouldn't care if she killed 10 teenagers thirty years ago. Hell, they don't care that Bush has killed thousands in the past 3 years!
My point above is that Allen's pathetic-ness is out there already, and the ones who love him couldn't care less about his "good ol' boy" days.
The task is to give those who are already turned off by that, and are honestly trying to make a decision who to vote FOR, reasons to vote for Webb rather than the Green candidate, Gail Parker.
I saw her on TV last night. I liked her. Her one issue is getting a comprehensive rail system in Virginia. She is smart, and I agreed with everything she said. It would be a disaster if unimpressed potential Webb voters went with her as a protest.
I have an idea that seems to be unappealing since it never gets done:
Put people with good ideas and talent who run against you, in positions of authority so they can accomplish those things that matter.
I thought of that during the primaries last year. So many capable people, with so many good ideas. But there's always one winner and all the rest losers. It is a waste of talent. But I digress...
Would it be dirty pool for Webb to say that he agrees with Parker's one issue and, if elected will appoint her to some committee, or consult with her, or some other such idea?
Jan Knaus
October 14, 2006 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now they've had 6 years of a dry-drunk doing just what evangelicals want. The way they are handling this Foley scandal is a perfect example. They say, yes, well, this is bad, but look at the Supreme Court! Now we have Alito, and look at the Chief Justice! That's what really matters, so stay with the republicans because they deliver what we want.
I'm pretty sure they blame the pages anyway.
I seriously can't think of one thing Allen could have done that would change the minds of the die-hards to go the way of Webb.
So forget the die-hards, and go after the thoughtful people who want real answers.
Jan Knaus
October 14, 2006 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree with martinez below... this digging into something minor which someone did 30 years ago is ridiculous and keeps good people from running for office. Who on earth would want to be subjected to that kind of proctological exam? Frankly I do not care if Bush drove drunk 30 years ago. That was 30 years ago. Did he hurt anyone? Has he done it since then? No?
If I'm going to criticize Bush for something he did 30 some years ago, it would be for being a military deserter, particularly since his party, out of one side of its mouth, idolizes war heroes and attacks anyone who dares to question the military in any way... and out the other side of its mouth it attacks veterans like Gore, Kerry, Murtha and McCain when it's politically expedient to do so. I do not even care that Bush did coke 30 years ago so long as he didn't do it again after that.
Think about it... we are setting up this standard where in order to run for office you can't ever have done the slightest thing wrong in your life. What kind of standard is that? It's absurd. It is a standard which insists that our politicians be pure as the driven snow. In politics of all professions. These are politicians not priests.
Now, having said that...other commenters have stated, 'yeah? well the other side does that all the time!' Yeah, they do. And in times like these, being fair-minded just doesn't cut it. I get it. It just seems like, you know... going after Allen because maybe he fished without a license 30 years ago... how penny-ante is that? I'm more concerned about whether the guy is dumb as a stump or a raging racist.
October 15, 2006 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Mitt Romney?
You guys are totally wrong about how much these things matter. These stupid scandals are what kill people. All they have to do is give people who aren't really paying attention anyway a reason not to go to the polls. You drive that turnout down even a little bit and it makes the difference in a close race. Bush and Rove are still thanking their lucky stars for pulling off the win in 2000 despite the news of his long ago drunk driving conviction coming out.
October 15, 2006 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What would have been smart would have been to do anything necessary to get her out of the race before she got into it. Now she's going to get a certain number of protest votes no matter what Webb says or does.
Her one issue sounds stupid anyway. Why does Virginia need a comprehensive rail system? You either live near D.C. and use their commuter system or you live in your small town or rural area and don't need to commute and probably wouldn't do so using a train even if you could.
October 15, 2006 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
These scandals and the negative ads and oppo research aren't meant for the diehards. They're for the persuadeables, the people who are independent and/or undecided, and could go either way. They don't want to support someone with a criminal past, no matter how long ago.
For semi-diehards, if Allen has a criminal record, they might just unconsciously or semi-consciously decide that they are too busy to make it a point to go to the polls on Nov. 7. These things help to drive down turn-out among a candidate's supporters. That's the whole basis of the Rove politics, and if we don't understand that, we're never going to beat the GOP.
Let's face it, if these tactics didn't work, they wouldn't be done.
October 15, 2006 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
He said he was fishing without a license, but he also SAID he never used the N-word, which is obviously a blatant lie to save his political career. He can't be trusted to report the truth about his past. Who knows what he did?
If it's no big deal, then when it comes out, it won't make any difference.
October 15, 2006 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even though it happened 30 years ago, I think these are legitimate questions to ask.
I agree that it won't change the minds of the diehard True Believers. And I agree somewhat that, in a perfect world, maybe it shouldn't matter what someone did so long ago.
BUT, politics is hardball. And these guys are big boys. I think it's fine to ask the question, and then see what the response is. How they respond may tell us something truly important.
And if you're thinking tactically, what's the harm in bringing this up? Will it turn off someone leaning toward Webb? ("Gee, if they're going to start bringing stuff up from 30 years ago, I'm just going to go ahead and vote for Allen -- that'll show 'em!") Does it cost a lot of money? No, it may very well generate free air time, if the media pick up on it.
So what's the downside? Will we somehow feel a little dirty? Like we've stooped to their level?? Don't look at it that way. This is something in the public record, and we're just asking about it. Think of it as giving the guys a little more rope.
And never forget that the other side stoops. They are serious stoopers. We didn't write the rules of this game. But we should be playing to win, because the stakes are extremely high.
-- ARG
October 15, 2006 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
HuguenotScot: The true investigative reporter should not give up on this matter...people do not fish in February in SW Virginia,it's too cold & we don't Icefish in Va. As Deepthroat so eloquently put it: "Follow the money." Wahoos generally would not be fishing in Hokie territory anyway...He was too prep to play any sport but the oldest one on earth and probably still hates the word "NO!" This would have to be something that happened in C'ville area, as Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries "Tickets" were issued in the county they occurred in.
October 24, 2006 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink